The FAA takes a very dim view of instructors running faux 135 operations under the guise of giving training. In addition, the idea of expense sharing on a flight without common purpose (i.e., the pilot having a legitimate reason to be going the same place on the same day) is a nonstarter. I'm with the others -- this is simply not within the realm of anything which can be done legally without a 135 certificate.
If the pilot is answering a public solicitation for a flight to a specific location on the advertiser's schedule, it's going to be a lot harder for the pilot to show common purpose. Caveat aviator.
I'm not a pilot, so my take may be way off, but the way I read it, if the plane doesn't meet the requirements of part 135, then even a commercial pilot cannot fly someone for hire, in a plane he provides. Whether he could be hired to fly your own plane, I do not know.
You're right.
If the operation requires a commercial certificate, you're exercising the privileges of said certificate and, in order to do that, you need a second class medical. As you said, though, this would be to have the company reimburse you. You could, instead, fly with the colleague as you'd have a common purpose. Your pro rata share could not be reimbursed. Your colleague could pay you the remainder, though.
No not unless the guy provided the airplane in a way that is 100% completely most definitely unrelated to your Hubby. Since your Hubby owns it, that would be extremely difficult to claim.
Correct as far as the FAA is concerned.
Thanks, Tim. I have actually learned something here. And the way I take the rental thing is that if the OP rents the plane, and the CP flies it, he's good (with the FAA, anyway - Insurance, maybe not so much). But the problem is that the OP won't be able to rent the plane because the FBOs won't rent it to him unless he's a current pilot, with medical, checked out in it. Good?
Yes, because JHG was basically asking for free rides wherever the pilot happened to be going. This poster is asking for a ride to a specific place on the poster's schedule, and offering to pay a set price for it without regard to direct expenses of the flight.
Yes, there are.
Yes, they would not be allowed to do that. There's a big difference between a commercial pilot certificate, which allows a pilot to be paid for flying a plane (but not to be paid for providing air transportation) and the commercial operating certificate required to operate an on-demand air taxi service, which is essentially what the OP's request entails. See Parts 119 and 135 of the FAR's to learn about commercial operating certificates and when they are required, and 61.133 for commercial pilot privileges and limitations.
On the day he wants to go, and to wait four hours for him, and to head back when the passenger is ready to go? Sorry -- too many ducks quacking.
That won't pass the sniff test -- the existing relationship between you and Hubby (not to mention the shared ownership of the airplane) sinks that ship before it leaves the harbor.
...as long as the commercial pilot has no relationship with the FBO whatsoever, and the FBO has no say in who flies the plane, in which case the FBO is most unlikely to do the deal.
Exactly.
No one has done it yet so...
There once was a man headed for Nantucket...
Nevermind.
Beats me. You'd have to ask the Chief Counsel to get a reliable answer.